Desktop Close App

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions force termination but never states the consequence — unsaved work loss, whether a confirmation/prompt appears, whether a graceful close can time out, or what happens if the app is not running.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the two operating modes are stated up front. It is lean to the point of under-specification, but nothing in it is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation the definition leaves critical gaps: app identifier format, force-mode consequences, and failure behavior. For a destructive-capable desktop action this is too thin.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so nothing defines whether 'app' expects a display name, bundle identifier, executable path, or PID. The description's grace/force phrasing loosely maps to the 'force' boolean but adds no detail on its behavior or default.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (close) and resource (application), and distinguishes two modes: graceful close versus force terminate. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as desktop_focus_window or desktop_launch, but the action is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites (does the app need to be running/focused?), and no guidance on when the force mode is appropriate or dangerous. The agent is left to infer the graceful-vs-force decision entirely.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.